Tag Archives: #PR

August 7, 2011 · 4:24 pm

Fighting Online Brand Sabotage 101

Brand Sabotage May Warrant Ninja Tactics

Complaint websites such as Yelp, Glassdoor and Ripoff Report – that empower actual and imaginary customers or employees to anonymously post their accurate or bogus comments online – have created new brand-related challenges and opportunities for their corporate targets.

Thanks to search engines and social media, anyone with a computer and a personal agenda can now inflict substantial, long-term damage to the reputations of institutions that may or may not be deserving of their viral sabotage. It’s become a dangerous and foreign world for CMOs, PR heads and others charged with protection of their company’s brand; especially for small and mid-sized companies lacking the sophistication or deep pockets to mount a serious defensive strategy.

At the risk of oversimplification, here are a few down & dirty street-fighter tactics that should be on the do-it-yourself checklist of every company that’s a real or potential target of brand saboteurs:

Keep Your Eyes Open – This advice appears rudimentary, but many companies don’t bother to stay on top of online content.  At the very least, all companies should use Google Alerts to keep track of what’s being said about them online. This service is free, but does not provide a comprehensive view of everything that’s being said. There are scores of sophisticated social media monitoring solutions, tailored to meet your budget and level of interest. Here’s a list of them.

Take the High Road First – If your company has made mistakes or fallen short of expectations, it’s best to man up quickly. If there’s a way to respond directly to a negative post, then admit your error, offer to make amends, and follow through on any promises you make. Negative posts are opportunities to showcase your company’s integrity and to build goodwill.

However…if it becomes clear that an employee, customer or competitor is using social media primarily to inflict brand damage, it’s appropriate to protect your company in a far more aggressive manner. The basic ninja tactics and rules involve:

Hit and Run – At the risk of being labeled a “troll” by the strange subculture of people whose hobbies include trashing companies online, it’s worth the effort for your company to fight fire with fire, by anonymously posting contrary opinion and evidence, on a selective basis, to discredit the brand saboteurs. If your defensive post is well-crafted (which means it’s not totally obvious that it was written by someone from your company), readers will conclude that the saboteur may not be correct, or at least that there is a difference of opinion.

Avoid Fistfights – If you employ anonymous hit and run tactics, never go toe-to-toe online with saboteurs by responding to their follow-up posts (where they will accuse you of being a shill for the company.) If you engage with them, your original post will lose its credibility, you’ll give them additional opportunities to trash your brand, and it will attract additional attention. If you can’t maintain your discipline, then don’t use hit and run tactics.

Call In The Cavalry – The odds are, if you’re running a successful business, that you have plenty of satisfied employees and customers. The problem is that brand terrorists are always more motivated to trash your brand than your brand ambassadors are likely to praise it. The solution is simple: swallow your pride, and ask for help from your fan base. Don’t tell them what to say, but do provide them with the specific information (or send a page link) they will need to post their positive opinions where it will have the greatest impact. Solicit at least one positive post every month, and don’t forget to thank those who take the time to help you.

Become Transparent – In a world driven by search engines, no news is longer good news; in fact, no news is a brand liability when you are the target of a brand saboteur. The most effective way to reduce and offset brand sabotage is to consistently generate online content that positions your company in a positive manner. This does not simply mean pumping out a press release every time your company introduces a product, wins an industry award, or appoints a new vice president. The content with the greatest value – both in terms of viral shelf life and marketing impact – provides insight into your firm’s intellectual capital…so that target audiences have a clear understanding of your company’s value proposition.

Pull Out the Legal Saber – If the damage caused by brand saboteurs is substantial and consistent, your company should consider legal means as a last resort. This can be expensive, but some companies have succeeded in neutering false and defamatory posts by first filing a lawsuit against the author of the post (not against the website or search engine); if successful in that suit, obtaining a court order related to the offending post; then presenting that court order to Google…which typically will honor the court order by removing the webpage with the offending post from its search index. Although this legal tactic will not remove the post from Ripoff Report, Yelp or Glassdoor, the post will no longer appear in Google search results, which is a significant damage control victory.

Many companies will continue to do little or nothing to prepare for online brand sabotage, on the assumption that it’s unlikely to ever happen to them. Like the classic Fram Oil Filter commercial, they can pay a little now, or pay a much bigger price later.  But there’s a growing list of CEOs who regret having rolled the dice with their company’s reputation at stake.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 24, 2011 · 4:15 pm

Are You Wasting Money on Publicity?

The Value of Publicity is Based on 3 Key Factors

Every year, companies waste time, money and opportunity generating publicity that accomplishes little or nothing in terms of tangible business outcomes.

Here are a few hard truths regarding publicity:

  • Your audiences are unlikely to notice the exposure, or do anything about it.  Even with content shelf-life driven by intelligent SEO management, there is simply too much information, too many online and offline media sources, and too little time in the day for your customers, prospects and referral sources to read, see or hear your message. And if they do get your message, there’s often little motivation for them to act on it.
  • Publicity volume does not translate into business results.  A single high-value media placement that’s properly merchandised often has greater impact than a pile of press clippings. In fact, publicity for its own sake is often unfocused, with no connection to the company’s underlying value proposition or core messages; generating confusion and apathy among target audiences.
  • Some types of publicity have significantly greater marketing value than others. The old PR adage that “There’s no such thing as bad publicity” may work for Lindsay Lohan, but it has no application for companies that care about their brand. To calculate the media placement value of various types of publicity (see chart above), Highlander Consulting uses three key criteria:
  1. BRAND RISK – If you have little control over how your company’s reputation or intellectual capital is presented – such as in a feature story where a reporter or editor will seek to produce “balanced coverage” by presenting negative items or including a competitor – then the publicity has inherent brand risk. (Value Scoring: +1 if you have total control over content; -1 if you have little or no control.)
  2. CREDIBILITY – Often called “masthead value,” this factor is based on how well the media source is recognized and respected. The potential value of the publicity is based in large measure on the underlying credibility of the source, because the exposure supplies an inherent 3rd party endorsement. (Value Scoring: +1 if the source has strong credibility; -1 if it has low credibility.)
  3. MERCHANDISING POTENTIAL – This often overlooked factor is sometimes mistakenly called “reprint value,” but Merchandising Potential encompasses far more, relating to how easily and how broadly the media exposure can be leveraged to support and drive specific marketing goals. Simply posting publicity on a website does not deliver a high ROI.  (Value Scoring: +1 if the publicity has a range of applications; -1 if it’s limited to one or two.)

Using this ranking methodology, and as reflected in the chart above , bylined articles and OpEd pieces published in credible sources typically deliver the highest marketing ROI; while inclusion (being mentioned or quoted) in a round-up news or feature story does not score well. Most home-grown efforts, such as self-published press releases, have very little value.

By using this formula, or a similar methodology, to evaluate the potential ROI of individual publicity tactics, and by building media and marketing strategies around only high-value activity,companies can consistently make the connection between publicity and tangible business results.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 15, 2011 · 1:17 pm

Using Negative Publicity as Negotiating Leverage

Shakedown of BMW of North America

The disclosure last May that Facebook had hired public relations firm Burson-Marstellar to initiate a smear campaign against Google’s “Social Circle” raised the hackles of many PR practitioners who labeled the tactic as unethical.  Although there’s no direct reference to the practice of using accurate information to disparage a competitor’s reputation in the PRSA’s Code of Ethics, it certainly can be classified as a bare knuckles strategy that most companies would not attempt.

A related behind-the-scenes tactic that’s more widely practiced (often by law firms on behalf of their clients) involves using the threat of negative publicity as a negotiating ploy. In many high-profile divorces, disputes involving celebrities or sports personalities, corporate mistakes or shortcomings, and misdeeds of senior executives, the direct or implied suggestion that unpleasant, embarrassing or damaging information will be disclosed to the media often serves as an effective bargaining chip.

Having witnessed the power of negative publicity, I decided to use it for personal advantage in my dealings with BMW of North America involving the lease of a 1992 318i, which over the course of less than a year had 27 different problems – including engine failure, faulty muffler system and a sideview mirror that simply fell off the car.  After multiple trips to my local BMW dealer, I felt it was time to bypass Lemon Laws and escalate the issue.

So here’s the strategy I developed:

  • I created a simple tombstone ad that read: “Looking for Reasons NOT to buy or lease a BMW 318i ? Call me. I’ve got 27 Good Ones for you.”
  • I drafted a press release entitled “Irate BMW Owner Places Ads in New York Times and Wall Street Journal After 27 Problems With 318i,” that detailed the car’s various issues.
  • I compiled a comprehensive list of automotive editors at every major publication.
  • I drafted a letter to the CEO of BMW of North America that said, in effect, “As a courtesy, I thought you would like to see the advertising and press release that’s scheduled for distribution next Wednesday.”
  • I FedExed the letter, the advertisement, the press release, and the editor list to BMW headquarters in New Jersey.

Two days later, I received a call from BMW’s head of service, who opened with, “Mr. Andrew. I understand you have a problem with your 318i?”

“In fact,” I responded, “I’ve had 27 problems with the car.”

“Have all of those 27 problems been fixed to your satisfaction?” he asked.

I countered with, “What is BMW’s slogan?”

“What do you mean?” he said.

“What’s your tag line, your advertising slogan, the phrase BMW uses to distinguish itself from other cars? “ I said.

He said nothing.

“Doesn’t BMW claim to be The Ultimate Driving Machine?” I asked.

His tone of voice changed. “What do you want from BMW, Mr. Andrew?”

“I want a new car.” I said.

He laughed. I didn’t.

“Here’s the deal” I said. “You give me a new car, or I place the ads and distribute the press release on Wednesday. It’s your call.”

After a very long pause, he asked, “Can you give me more time than that?”

I said, “You have until Friday. Thanks for your call.” And hung up the phone.

On Thursday, I received a call from my local BMW dealership, asking me to bring my car in as soon as possible for “an inspection.” When I arrived at the dealership the next morning, I noticed that all of the parts & service staff were wearing ties. I asked the service manager (who was also wearing a blazer with a BMW logo on the pocket) why everyone was dressed so formally. He pulled me aside, and whispered, “Mr. Andrew, I’ve worked at this dealership for 7 years, and no one from BMW of North America has ever been here for any reason. Today the head of service for all of BMW will be here, and he’s coming to look at YOUR car.”

Bingo!

Here’s what BMW offered me: If I paid for taxes and registration, they would swap the 1992 4-cylinder 318i clunker for a brand new 1993 6-cylinder 325i.  I took the deal, and never had a single problem with the 325i while I owned the car.

The lesson in this for people looking to use negative publicity as negotiating leverage, is that you must:

  1. Possess truthful information that’s likely to cause tangible reputational / brand damage
  2. Convince the other party that you have the ability to disseminate that information credibly
  3. Demonstrate that you either have nothing to lose, that you have a few screws loose, or both

The lesson in this for BMW of North America is that by dealing with me fairly, they created a lifelong customer. I believe BMW does live up to its Ultimate Driving Machine claim, and I currently drive a 2011 328xi for that reason. But the assumption BMW should have made in its negotiations with me is that there was no way a guy who was too cheap to drive one of their 7 series cars would have made good on a threat to place ads in the NYTimes or WSJournal.  I was bluffing, but with negative publicity as a card I might be holding, I won the hand.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 1, 2011 · 6:15 pm

Why New Jersey Loves Bad PR

Fly Fishing on the Raritan in Califon, NJ

Before I relocated to New Jersey a few years ago, my impressions of the Garden State were consistent with the stereotypes: Interstate 95 traffic jams, cogeneration plants spewing smoke, Tony Soprano, roadside diners, dangerous cities, people with annoying accents. But it took little time living in New Jersey to see that its range of natural beauty — from coastline, to quaint towns, to farmlands and deep woodlands — can match any state in the union. In spite of MTV’s Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi and Mike “The Situation,” most New Jersey residents have much more on their minds than “Gym, Tan and Laundry,” and the notorious Jersey accent is actually from Staten Island. Sorry New York.

So why doesn’t New Jersey hire a PR firm to set the record straight?

Before I had an opportunity to register my car in New Jersey, a group of teenagers who spotted my Connecticut license plates yelled at me in unison: “Go Home!” In defense, I screamed back: “Hey! I live here!”

So I asked my next door neighbor: “New Jersey’s a beautiful state, and doesn’t do justice to its lousy reputation. Why are people here so content to have outsiders believe all the negative stereotypes?”

“People who live here all know what a great state New Jersey is,” he said. “And we don’t care if other people find out, because then they might move here.”

New Jersey loves its bad PR, and has no interest in improving its reputation. Bad PR means fewer people to discover New Jersey’s prime fly fishing locations, more blanket space on its pristine beaches, and available tee times at its world-class golf courses.

But you didn’t get that information from me.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

April 30, 2011 · 11:29 pm

The PR Industry’s Dirty Little Secret

If you’re looking to hire a PR firm, and they suggest their deep relationships with journalists will be of benefit to you, that’s when you should show them the door.

Regardless of the size of their Rolodex, seasoned PR practitioners do not use those media contacts to sell their services. They know those long-term professional relationships are more important to them than the short-term needs of any client. They understand that success in media placement is based on what they know, not on who they know.

And “what they know” is how reporters think, and what they need. This insight enables PR pros to ferret out appropriate news and ideas. To package that information so that it’s not self-serving.  To present story ideas in an appealing manner. To push back or disagree with reporters and editors when it’s called for.  And to NEVER pitch a reporter solely based on their relationship with them.

Conversely, seasoned journalists do not cover news or accept story ideas from flacks simply because they’ve shared a few beers or worked with them previously. A reporter’s reputation is too important to compromise by covering items that don’t meet their editorial standards or address the interests of their readers or viewers. On a personal level, journalists also don’t appreciate the implication that they can be influenced by someone with an agenda.

PR firms that leverage media relationships to pitch substandard content are playing a losing game. Companies led to believe they’ll gain from their PR firm’s media contacts are simply being played.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

April 19, 2011 · 11:25 pm

4 PR Lessons from the SharesPost / Wall Street Journal Fistfight

If you’re not a habitual rubbernecker of battles between companies and the press, here’s a condensed version of a recent incident that can provide some lessons for all those subject to public scrutiny…which includes just about every individual, institution and company, public or private.

On April 12, the Wall Street Journal published “Meet My Departed Grandma, Fledgling Facebook Investor” in “The Game” column by Dennis K. Berman, who as deputy bureau chief for the Journal’s Money & Investing, is no cub reporter. The column was based on Berman’s assessment of the performance of online broker SharesPost, after posing as a would-be investor using the identity of his long departed grandmother.

Following publication, SharesPost CEO David Weir voiced strong objection to Berman’s column – in a letter to the editor at the Wall Street Journal and through an aggressive behind-the-scenes campaign directed at any blog editor willing to listen – focused on the journalistic ethics of Berman’s methods, as well as the accuracy of his reporting. Public controversy has erupted over the piece, prompting insider publications including Columbia Journalism Review to weigh in on Berman’s column.

Here are some lessons other companies can learn from the SharesPost coverage:

The Press Is Not Your Friend – There will always be reporters willing to employ any available means to make a name for themselves.  Journalistic ideals espoused by Edward R. Murrow are long forgotten, and the line between news and entertainment has been blurred for decades. The Wall Street Journal and other media sources are NOT in business to make SharesPost look good…or even to report its (or your) side of the story. They’re simply competing for eyeballs.

Reporters Have Personal Agendas – Failure to recognize that reporters have opinions, prejudices, deadlines, career aspirations, overbearing bosses and overdue credit card bills often results in coverage that’s a big disappointment to those being written about. SharesPost may have been blind-sided by Berman in this story, but for many companies, their refusal to deal honestly and respectfully with a reporter can yield unpleasant results.

You Need To Suck It Up – SharesPost claimed that Berman’s column was one-sided and left out key facts, but CEOs are rarely objective and often thin-skinned with respect to the opinion of any outsider. More importantly, readers often have little interest in and pay much less attention to negative coverage than what’s imagined by the offended party. If you’re running an upstanding business, taking an occasional negative shot will not sink your ship.

It Can Pay to Make a Stink – Although SharesPost is unlikely to receive corrections, a retraction or an apology from the Wall Street Journal, its CEO was correct in making a public stink about Berman’s column. In this viral age, when the shelf-life of media coverage appears to be unlimited, it’s important to have your point of view on the record. But before you take that step, make sure your appeal is based on hard-nosed facts rather than ego or opinion, or you’ll be digging an even deeper hole.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,